Talk:Orson Welles
Storm Front Shouldn't the Storm Front reference be italicized since it was in a deleted scene?--Ten-pint 15:34, July 4, 2010 (UTC) :The whole article is "real world". No need for italics. Now, the entire reference may not even be done quite the right way either. -- sulfur 15:37, July 4, 2010 (UTC) New page What's the point of creating a new page here? It was a deleted scene, therefore, the way it was before was appropriate. Am I missing something? -Angry Future Romulan 00:02, October 15, 2010 (UTC) :We do keep stuff from deleted scenes. Check out the category. Really. -- sulfur 00:26, October 15, 2010 (UTC) Really? Not joking? Really really? Because without the condescending attitude, I would've thought you were kidding. -Angry Future Romulan 00:38, October 15, 2010 (UTC) :I just wanted to make sure that you knew that I wasn't kidding. :) -- sulfur 01:01, October 15, 2010 (UTC) Merge suggestion I suggest merging this article with Orson Welles. Since both pages only contain real world information, the info can be placed on the same page. That's why they were on the same page in the first place. We can have a section for the deleted scene info if necessary. --From Andoria with Love 09:50, October 15, 2010 (UTC) :Thank you! -Angry Future Romulan 13:54, October 15, 2010 (UTC) ::Agreed, remerge. There's no need to have two real-world articles on the same person.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:02, October 16, 2010 (UTC) :::disagree - they are both real world, but they are two distinctly different things. One page describes an in-universe concept which was cut and thus is non-canon, but still deserves a page according to our rules. The other page is about a performer. Pages on deleted concepts may have the real world template (and rightly so), but conceptually they are essentially in-universe articles, except not canon. Hence I don't see how the fact that deleted material articles get a real world template makes this different to how we deal with Isaac Asimov vs Isaac Asimov (author), or with two (hypothetical) different production members with the same name. Different things = different pages. -- Capricorn 00:24, October 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::Merge. The deleted material(which is only a one-off mention) can be given its own section. At a minimum the deleted scene page should be rewritten to be more real-world and less in-universe.--31dot 01:32, October 16, 2010 (UTC) :::I've made an attempt at rewriting the article to be more real world (The original formating was a consequence of it being lifted almost verbatim from the other page). Also, Could Shran or anyone else please explain to me how this statement is valid; "Since both pages only contain real world information, the info can be placed on the same page" - Its not that I'm not willing to discuss this issue but I guess that right now I just don't get Shran's logic. -- Capricorn 09:39, October 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::Merge. In-universe Asimov was something that appeared on-screen. In-universe Welles was cut out, so there is no in-universe Welles. --Pseudohuman 09:58, October 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::Keep in mind that we do keep deleted materials in Category:Deleted material and there was never an in-universe article about Welles- the argument here is that two real world articles are not needed.--31dot 10:00, October 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::But why are those not needed? We "need" articles on stuff from deleted scenes. On top of that, we also need articles on performers. But The deleted fictional character Welles and the "real performer Welles" are not the same character (in analogy, again, with Asimov and other such cases). So given that they are two distinct subjects, each with their own justification to exist and only "by accident" sharing the same name, don't they deserve seperate articles? -- Capricorn 10:23, October 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::I would not describe a one-off mention as a "character"- more like a "reference" which does not need its own article as Welles was only mentioned. If it was a fictional person who was mentioned, then yes, it should have an article- but Welles is not fictional and already has an article. Why have two?--31dot 10:36, October 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::I don't think it matters if he's a character or just a reference, as Category:Deleted material articles seem to be created according to essentially the same guidelines for notability as in-universe articles. HMS Beagle (while not a person) is an example of that, it was never seen. As for your seconf point, the "fictional" thing; the Welles mentioned in storm front is fictional, just like numerous discussions have established the star trek version of for example George W. Bush to be a fictional entity potentialy distict from the version in "our universe". After all, there are differences between the both universes, and who is to say that "Star Trek Bush" or "Star Trek Welles" had the exact same life and role as their real-life counterparts. -- Capricorn 11:04, October 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::Actualy, the article on Bush might not be the clearest example on that principle in action. perhaps a better one would be Tony Blair (also check the talk page). -- Capricorn 11:19, October 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::And another thing, note that both the real Bush and real Blair ruled in what in the star trek universe would be the aftermath of the Eugenics Wars, making their paths in life almost certainly different from their star trek counterparts. -- Capricorn 11:23, October 19, 2010 (UTC) I went through with the merge, based on the discussion above. Both the performer info and the deleted scene info are background information, so keeping them on separate pages is a bit pointless. Also, since he was never mentioned in canon, only in a deleted scene, he's not a part of the Trek universe like Bush and Blair; Welles was neither a character nor a reference. As far as we know, he only existed in our universe. So, any way you slice it, it's all real-world ("our world") information and doesn't need to split into two pages. --From Andoria with Love 08:53, November 18, 2010 (UTC)